Rising temperatures in the world's atmosphere and oceans will lead to more intense storms as the century progresses, according to a new report from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Evaporation increases when the surface temperature of the ocean rises and warmer air can hold more moisture. When this soggier-than-normal air moves over land, it results in storms wetter and more intense than those experienced in the past.

The greatest changes will occur over land in the tropics, according to the study, which was released Thursday. Heavier rain or snow, however, will also fall in northwestern and northeastern North America, northern Europe, northern and eastern Asia, southwestern Australia, and parts of South America during the current century.

"The models show most areas around the world will experience more intense precipitation for a given storm during this century," lead author Gerald Meehl said in a statement. "Information on which areas will be most affected could help communities to better manage water resources and anticipate possible flooding."

The Mediterranean and the southwestern U.S., meanwhile, will experience a different pattern. Storms will likely become wetter, particularly in the fall and winter, but dry spells may stretch for longer in the warmer months. A picture of how this pattern might develop was seen in Europe this year: While Germany endured unprecedented floods, Spain and Portugal imposed water rationing because of a lengthy drought.

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in April released a report predicting that hurricanes would become more intense over the coming century. It became an oft-cited study after Hurricane Katrina hit.

Climate change has become a hot-button issue for scientists, politicians and the general public. The scientific community now generally agrees that global warming is in fact happening, and most of the future scenarios aren't pretty.

Rising sea levels could lead to more frequent flooding in Bangladesh and other low-lying nations. Food production could also be disrupted. Melting polar ice is expected by some to lead to a sea lane above Siberia in a few years.

While scientists generally agree that the world's climate is changing, there is more disagreement over how much of the change is due to human behavior. Some believe a great deal of the warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, which create greenhouse gases that trap heat. Examination of data from the 20th century implicates humans, Meehl said in a phone interview.

"Probably most of the climate change in the early part of the century was caused by natural events," he said, such as a rebounding of temperatures that ordinarily occurs after volcanoes. "But the change in the latter part of he 20th century was the result of human activity."

Others disagree. Still others assert that, because the stakes are so high, debating whether or not reducing greenhouse gas emissions can help makes no sense.

Global warming is a fact. Hoping and praying won't help. We all can help with minimization of use of all fossil fuels. But are we prepared to do something, to sacrifice to luxury, to cheap gas....It seems the hurricanes are not strong enough...., the damage was not devastating enough,....

Global warming is a fact. Hoping and praying won't help. We all can help with minimization of use of all fossil fuels. But are we prepared to do something, to sacrifice to luxury, to cheap gas....It seems the hurricanes are not strong enough...., the damage was not devastating enough,....

It always amazes me how scientists can know the weather 100 years from now we they don't know where a Hurricane is going to strike 2 days from now.

Do enough research, and stop listening to people who sound reputable, and you'll see there is little proof for global warming. Hurricanes aren't getting stronger or more frequent. News is just traveling faster and people have short memories. Plus, more people live in danger zones. They forget that the strongest hurricane on record was 1933. They forget that most hurricanes to hit the US in one decade was in the 1940's.

And, who alive knows what happened before accurate records were kept?

You have to dig deep, because even some reports that come out against global warming somehow manage to get back to it being real.

So maybe you could post a listing of the scholarly journals and published reports that have undergone scientific scrutiny that you reviewed in your independent research? And I mean reports published by climatologists, geophysicists, and other scientists who specialize in the subject and not crackpots with degrees in divinity or philosophy or PR pieces put out by paid BS artists.

For those who would care to look <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns" target="_newWindow">http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns</a> is a fine place to start. Type -climate change- into the search box and you will get about 1700 articles to choose from.

The truth is that global warming is accepted as factual by most of the worlds real experts. There is much debate over the exact mechanisms and outcomes but that does not alter the validity of the concept.

Global warming IS real - The question is, what's causing it? Is it natural? Is it induced by humans? Data from the IPCC shows an interesting increase in earths SFC (surface) temperature between 1900 and 1940, at the same rate at which temperatures are increasing today. Then, from 1940 to 1980, SFC temperatures actually DECREASED (see source at bottom). Even more interesting is that when the linear models used to predict future warming, they fail their retrocasts, meaning they can't even acurately predict what has already occured.

So, global warming is real - but it's WAY to early to say if it will contiune or reverse, or what the cause is. You can't tell me that over Earth's 5 billion-year lifetime, that "global warming" hasn't occured a couple of times.

You'd find there's nobody providing physical evidence against global warming. You don't even find much debate about whether it's a trend that would alter local ecosystems and affect agriculture, sea-level, etc.

What you find is debate on: how severe an issue is it, what's the cause, is it part of a natural cycle, is there something we can do about it (and if so, should we), etc.

The evidence is pretty concrete that there's global warming, and we know enough about climate to know what the near-term ramifications are. However, science is a less certain on the weight of the contributing factors, the long term prognosis for global climate, etc. So, the amateur prognosticators (government) generally take stances that support their overall position with regard to the environment, and the press presents the political spin as the underlying science -- even going so far as presenting the existence of global warming as some sort of debate in the scientific community.

Global warming exists. Temperature trends are easily tracked, the weather readily observable on a global scale, and definition exists for the term. It's silly to pretend it simply doesn't exist.

It always amazes me how scientists can know the weather 100 years from now we they don't know where a Hurricane is going to strike 2 days from now.

Do enough research, and stop listening to people who sound reputable, and you'll see there is little proof for global warming. Hurricanes aren't getting stronger or more frequent. News is just traveling faster and people have short memories. Plus, more people live in danger zones. They forget that the strongest hurricane on record was 1933. They forget that most hurricanes to hit the US in one decade was in the 1940's.

And, who alive knows what happened before accurate records were kept?

You have to dig deep, because even some reports that come out against global warming somehow manage to get back to it being real.

So maybe you could post a listing of the scholarly journals and published reports that have undergone scientific scrutiny that you reviewed in your independent research? And I mean reports published by climatologists, geophysicists, and other scientists who specialize in the subject and not crackpots with degrees in divinity or philosophy or PR pieces put out by paid BS artists.

For those who would care to look <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns" target="_newWindow">http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns</a> is a fine place to start. Type -climate change- into the search box and you will get about 1700 articles to choose from.

The truth is that global warming is accepted as factual by most of the worlds real experts. There is much debate over the exact mechanisms and outcomes but that does not alter the validity of the concept.

Global warming IS real - The question is, what's causing it? Is it natural? Is it induced by humans? Data from the IPCC shows an interesting increase in earths SFC (surface) temperature between 1900 and 1940, at the same rate at which temperatures are increasing today. Then, from 1940 to 1980, SFC temperatures actually DECREASED (see source at bottom). Even more interesting is that when the linear models used to predict future warming, they fail their retrocasts, meaning they can't even acurately predict what has already occured.

So, global warming is real - but it's WAY to early to say if it will contiune or reverse, or what the cause is. You can't tell me that over Earth's 5 billion-year lifetime, that "global warming" hasn't occured a couple of times.

You'd find there's nobody providing physical evidence against global warming. You don't even find much debate about whether it's a trend that would alter local ecosystems and affect agriculture, sea-level, etc.

What you find is debate on: how severe an issue is it, what's the cause, is it part of a natural cycle, is there something we can do about it (and if so, should we), etc.

The evidence is pretty concrete that there's global warming, and we know enough about climate to know what the near-term ramifications are. However, science is a less certain on the weight of the contributing factors, the long term prognosis for global climate, etc. So, the amateur prognosticators (government) generally take stances that support their overall position with regard to the environment, and the press presents the political spin as the underlying science -- even going so far as presenting the existence of global warming as some sort of debate in the scientific community.

Global warming exists. Temperature trends are easily tracked, the weather readily observable on a global scale, and definition exists for the term. It's silly to pretend it simply doesn't exist.

This article -- and the know-nothing comments it inspired -- help perpetuate the myth that scientific controversy surrounds the question of whether greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. In fact, there is no significant disagreement in scientific circles at all. The opposing view comes from organizations or individuals funded by the oil, gas, and coal companies, such as globalwarming.org. All they need to do is sow seeds of doubt in the public mind, with or without proof, and they've done their job -- and suckered the writer of this article into believing that the evidence in in doubt.

Not just the UN, but the National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Brookings Institution, and even the Bush administration (before Christie Todd-Whitman got slapped down by the fossil fuel lobbies) have agreed that auto and industrial CO2 emissions are almost without question the primary cause of the current warming trend, which -- as the latest NASA prediction goes -- will result in the Arctic ice cap disappearing in 60 years.

Denying science when it conflicts with profits is nothing new. Ibsen's "Enemy of the People" nailed it over 100 years ago. The difference this time, I think, can be found in the laughable comment (troll bait?) here that referred to "liberal scientists." In science, when a researcher comes up with a hypothesis, the game is to challenge it -- and if it withstands multiple challenges over time, it is gradully accepted. That's what happened with global warming. But this process is derided as "reality-based" by the wingnuts running things these days, who live their lives based on things they would like to be true, which are never challenged. They find the conclusions that benefit them the most personally and find "evidence" to support them, even if they have to pay for its manufacture. And they haven't the foggiest idea why anyone would live their lives any other way. Ergo, scientists must be "liberal."

That's why James Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma and the top recipient of big oil lobbying money -- who recently called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" -- kicked off his hearings with testimony by the loopy novelist Michael Crichton. No reputable member of the scientific community would be caught dead in that chair.

Talk about knowing nothing! This whole diatribe is the typical stupidity liberals try to foist on the unassuming. The biggest source of gas, greenhouse or otherwise comes from pseudoscientists that perpetuate such myths. This is the same crowd who was decrying the next ice age in the late 60's early 70's. One things for sure, the Earth undergoes slow temperatures changes through time. Idiots who blame man for everything should have stayed in the premordial slime which they also expouse. As Dr. F. Gump opined "stupid is as stupid does". Hopefully one day all these morons will move back into their cave. I look forward to less crowded freeways occupied by fewer nuts - do you all drive Volvo's or have you moved onto walking everywhere?

I'll by into the man is causing global warming MYTH when someone from the global warming camp can explain the cause of the many RAPID global warming and cooling periods that have occured in the past long befor factories and cars. Most recently around 700-900 years ago. Do a small amount of research on European Climate change and "Mini Ice Age" then come back here and explain how man was resoponsible for that. I DON'T DOUBT THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING. Its happened in the past - both gradually and quickly - and will happen again. With or without man.

This whole thing just points up the current war over the spoils of Western civilisation between those who understand the difference between blind belief and empirical knowledge (i.e. according to the evidence rather than a priori prejudice) and those who don't and/or won't because they are motivated by physical desire, not intellectual curiosity. Coupled with politically motivated or duped insincerity and a big dollop of narrowmindedness and we are nearly back in the Middle Ages with torture, imprisonment etc for thinking outside of the box and/or working from experimental results. "May you live in interesting times" is an ancient Chinese curse.

This article -- and the know-nothing comments it inspired -- help perpetuate the myth that scientific controversy surrounds the question of whether greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. In fact, there is no significant disagreement in scientific circles at all. The opposing view comes from organizations or individuals funded by the oil, gas, and coal companies, such as globalwarming.org. All they need to do is sow seeds of doubt in the public mind, with or without proof, and they've done their job -- and suckered the writer of this article into believing that the evidence in in doubt.

Not just the UN, but the National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Brookings Institution, and even the Bush administration (before Christie Todd-Whitman got slapped down by the fossil fuel lobbies) have agreed that auto and industrial CO2 emissions are almost without question the primary cause of the current warming trend, which -- as the latest NASA prediction goes -- will result in the Arctic ice cap disappearing in 60 years.

Denying science when it conflicts with profits is nothing new. Ibsen's "Enemy of the People" nailed it over 100 years ago. The difference this time, I think, can be found in the laughable comment (troll bait?) here that referred to "liberal scientists." In science, when a researcher comes up with a hypothesis, the game is to challenge it -- and if it withstands multiple challenges over time, it is gradully accepted. That's what happened with global warming. But this process is derided as "reality-based" by the wingnuts running things these days, who live their lives based on things they would like to be true, which are never challenged. They find the conclusions that benefit them the most personally and find "evidence" to support them, even if they have to pay for its manufacture. And they haven't the foggiest idea why anyone would live their lives any other way. Ergo, scientists must be "liberal."

That's why James Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma and the top recipient of big oil lobbying money -- who recently called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" -- kicked off his hearings with testimony by the loopy novelist Michael Crichton. No reputable member of the scientific community would be caught dead in that chair.

Talk about knowing nothing! This whole diatribe is the typical stupidity liberals try to foist on the unassuming. The biggest source of gas, greenhouse or otherwise comes from pseudoscientists that perpetuate such myths. This is the same crowd who was decrying the next ice age in the late 60's early 70's. One things for sure, the Earth undergoes slow temperatures changes through time. Idiots who blame man for everything should have stayed in the premordial slime which they also expouse. As Dr. F. Gump opined "stupid is as stupid does". Hopefully one day all these morons will move back into their cave. I look forward to less crowded freeways occupied by fewer nuts - do you all drive Volvo's or have you moved onto walking everywhere?

I'll by into the man is causing global warming MYTH when someone from the global warming camp can explain the cause of the many RAPID global warming and cooling periods that have occured in the past long befor factories and cars. Most recently around 700-900 years ago. Do a small amount of research on European Climate change and "Mini Ice Age" then come back here and explain how man was resoponsible for that. I DON'T DOUBT THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING. Its happened in the past - both gradually and quickly - and will happen again. With or without man.

This whole thing just points up the current war over the spoils of Western civilisation between those who understand the difference between blind belief and empirical knowledge (i.e. according to the evidence rather than a priori prejudice) and those who don't and/or won't because they are motivated by physical desire, not intellectual curiosity. Coupled with politically motivated or duped insincerity and a big dollop of narrowmindedness and we are nearly back in the Middle Ages with torture, imprisonment etc for thinking outside of the box and/or working from experimental results. "May you live in interesting times" is an ancient Chinese curse.

It is so funny watching something as insignificant as mankind carp about somethng like global warming.

Folks - we live on an organic planet that could care less that we exist on it's surface. It will continue to "live" regardless of what we little humans do to it. When you look at how long mankind has existed on this planet, versus the age of the planet itself, we are not even a blink of an eye.

One day, this planet will warm up enough that the ice caps will melt and flood all of the continents. It has happened before - and it will happen again. And there isn't one damn thing us puny little humans can do about it.

See, that is the probelm with mankind We are so narcissistic. We actually think we are "important" and we can conqueror all. LOL!!! Tell that to a hurricane or earthquake.

It is so funny watching something as insignificant as mankind carp about somethng like global warming.

Folks - we live on an organic planet that could care less that we exist on it's surface. It will continue to "live" regardless of what we little humans do to it. When you look at how long mankind has existed on this planet, versus the age of the planet itself, we are not even a blink of an eye.

One day, this planet will warm up enough that the ice caps will melt and flood all of the continents. It has happened before - and it will happen again. And there isn't one damn thing us puny little humans can do about it.

See, that is the probelm with mankind We are so narcissistic. We actually think we are "important" and we can conqueror all. LOL!!! Tell that to a hurricane or earthquake.

About once a month, CNET's editors allow an article like this to be included on the front page of news.com--which have absolutely no relevance to anything even remotely related to information technology. What possible purpose is there in including articles like this on a site like news.com--much less on the front page? What is the agenda that the editors seem to be trying to advance?

Because its important to keep the populace at large properly indoctrinated with the latest fabricated doomsday scenario. Otherwise, the drones might start questioning things... and then they wouldnt be good little consumers, would they?

About once a month, CNET's editors allow an article like this to be included on the front page of news.com--which have absolutely no relevance to anything even remotely related to information technology. What possible purpose is there in including articles like this on a site like news.com--much less on the front page? What is the agenda that the editors seem to be trying to advance?

Because its important to keep the populace at large properly indoctrinated with the latest fabricated doomsday scenario. Otherwise, the drones might start questioning things... and then they wouldnt be good little consumers, would they?

Sustained high oil and natural gas prices and further supply disruptions will lead to a shift to alternative energy sources. Most likely development will come from China as they realize that it is foolish to keep paying inflated prices to the Middle East for an unstable supply that threatens their ablilty to continue to grow as a manufacturing powerhouse and to economically feed their people.

China's central planning and Communist rule will allow them to bypass social and environmental concerns to move ahead with experimental methods such as beaming down microwave energy from space. Once they find technology that works, they will license it, or perhaps sell the power directly to a desperate world. I do not expect solutions to come from the industrialized countries of Europe or the U.S. as their Big Energy vested interests have the most to lose from a move away from fossil fuels.

.... about beaming down microwave energy from space. assuming that you can come up with an adequate orbital power source, by the time you can beam enough power to the ground to be useful, you'll have fried everything on the ground. Then, no further power will be needed.

We'll probably find other solutions.Such as wind farms that kill birds and bats.Or solar cells that generate tons of chemical waste for their production, and that last for a few years.Or hydrogen, that needs other sources for generation, adding inefficiencies in the process.Or hydroelectric that floods vast areas and kills whole ecosystems.Or geothermal that produces enough energy to power an average house.

Until cold fusion is attained, or environmentalists stop opposing to (much cleaner and safer) atomic fision energy, we are stuck with oil, CO2 and global warming.

Sustained high oil and natural gas prices and further supply disruptions will lead to a shift to alternative energy sources. Most likely development will come from China as they realize that it is foolish to keep paying inflated prices to the Middle East for an unstable supply that threatens their ablilty to continue to grow as a manufacturing powerhouse and to economically feed their people.

China's central planning and Communist rule will allow them to bypass social and environmental concerns to move ahead with experimental methods such as beaming down microwave energy from space. Once they find technology that works, they will license it, or perhaps sell the power directly to a desperate world. I do not expect solutions to come from the industrialized countries of Europe or the U.S. as their Big Energy vested interests have the most to lose from a move away from fossil fuels.

.... about beaming down microwave energy from space. assuming that you can come up with an adequate orbital power source, by the time you can beam enough power to the ground to be useful, you'll have fried everything on the ground. Then, no further power will be needed.

We'll probably find other solutions.Such as wind farms that kill birds and bats.Or solar cells that generate tons of chemical waste for their production, and that last for a few years.Or hydrogen, that needs other sources for generation, adding inefficiencies in the process.Or hydroelectric that floods vast areas and kills whole ecosystems.Or geothermal that produces enough energy to power an average house.

Until cold fusion is attained, or environmentalists stop opposing to (much cleaner and safer) atomic fision energy, we are stuck with oil, CO2 and global warming.

... trying to address what the vast majority of scientisits consider a potentially catastrophic problem?

I mean, their educated guess could be wrong. Then we'll have wasted all that money.

Holes in the ozone open up and close all the time! Just last night, in fact, one opened over my neighbors garage. He says smoking causes lung cancer. The fool, cancer rates have surged and subsided throught out history.

Equating liberalism with science is a terrible mistake. Ignoring a potential problem that is very probably real, is the mark of delusional irresponsibility.

... trying to address what the vast majority of scientisits consider a potentially catastrophic problem?

I mean, their educated guess could be wrong. Then we'll have wasted all that money.

Holes in the ozone open up and close all the time! Just last night, in fact, one opened over my neighbors garage. He says smoking causes lung cancer. The fool, cancer rates have surged and subsided throught out history.

Equating liberalism with science is a terrible mistake. Ignoring a potential problem that is very probably real, is the mark of delusional irresponsibility.

I can honestly say that I am a conservative, I like O'reily (to an extent), and I do in fact believe that global warming is a FACT. The only questions left are: What's the cause? Will it continue?

There was a period of "global warming" between 1900-1940, with a mini "ice age" or "global cooling" between 1940 and 1980 - then another reversal back to a warming phase. Given that, I can see why everyone cried "the ice age is coming" back in the 1970's, but still - that trend reversed. Who knows if global warming will or won't do the same - I sure don't, and I am willing to bet that everyone else on earth don't know the answer either.

I can honestly say that I am a conservative, I like O'reily (to an extent), and I do in fact believe that global warming is a FACT. The only questions left are: What's the cause? Will it continue?

There was a period of "global warming" between 1900-1940, with a mini "ice age" or "global cooling" between 1940 and 1980 - then another reversal back to a warming phase. Given that, I can see why everyone cried "the ice age is coming" back in the 1970's, but still - that trend reversed. Who knows if global warming will or won't do the same - I sure don't, and I am willing to bet that everyone else on earth don't know the answer either.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CNET's Site Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to:

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.